Midreshet Lindenbaum - Vayakhel-Pikudei

Parshat Vayakhel
Rav Menachem Leibtag

1. QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION
2. SHIUR ON PARASHAT VAYAKHEL-PIKUDEI
3. QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER IYUN

1. QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

BETWEEN SHABBAT & THE MISHKAN

1. As you most probably are aware, Chazal learn the halachik definition of MELACHA [work] on shabbat from any type of 'work' that was required to construct the Mishkan (better known as the "lamed-tet melachot"). The opening three psukim of Parshat Va'yakhel are one of the primary reasons for this definition.
[See Mesechet Shabbat chapter 7.]
Review these psukim (i.e. Shmot 35:1-4) in their context, and attempt to explain why. Would you consider this halachik interpretation as "pshat" or "drash"?

2. Carefully compare the structure of the psukim in Shmot 35:1-4 to the structure of Vayikra 23:1-4.
What textual pattern is similar?
In your opinion, does the phrase "ayleh ha'devarim" in 35:1 relate to the laws of Shabbat that follow in 35:2-3, or to the laws of the Mishkan that follow in 35:4-20?
Why do most all of the commentators explain "ayleh ha'dEvarim" as relating to the Mishkan and NOT shabbat?
[See also Parshanut section below.]
Is this "pshat"? Why then is "shabbat" the first mitzvah that Moshe tells the people? [See Ramban on 35:1.]
Relate this to your answer to question #1 above.

3. Next, review the laws of Shabbat as presented in 31:12-17, noting how these psukim form the final 'parshia' after a sequence of seven chapters of laws concerning the Mishkan (i.e. the Mishkan unit of chapters 25->31). Explain how this juxtaposition supports Chazal's definition of "melacha" on shabbat.

4. Note the word "brit" and its context in 31:16; relate to the word "ot" in 31:13. Where else in Chumash do we find the concept of "ot brit"? [If you give up, try looking in Breishit chapters 9 and 17.] Why does a "brit" need an "ot"? [Or re-phrased - Why does a bride need a wedding ring?]
In your opinion, why would the concept of shabbat being an "ot brit" immediately follow the laws of the Mishkan (whose focal point is the "luchot ha'BRIT")? Relate to the Mishkan's name - i.e. the "OHEL MOED", and what that name implies. [Note also Vayikra 23:1-3!]. Relate this to Shmot 29:44-46 (and our shiur on Parshat Tezaveh).

5. How is the halachik definition for "melacha" on yom-tov different from its definition on shabbat? Based on the above questions, can you suggest a reason why?
In your answer, relate to the difference between 'creativity' and 'physical labor'; & the reason why we don't work on Yom Tov, based on Vayikra chapter 23.

BETWEEN CHET HA'EGEL and the MISHKAN

1. When Moshe gathers the people (in 35:1) in order to command them concerning the laws of the Mishkan, why do you think that Torah chooses specifically the word "VAYAKHEL" to describe this gathering?
Relate to Shmot 32:1.

2. Is the "melacha" of "ha'avara" (35:3 /increasing a fire, i.e. making a flame or furnace hotter) in any way connected to "chet ha'egel"? If so, how? [Relate to 32:4,24.]
Is this "melacha" connected in any manner to building the Mishkan or making any of its vessels? [e.g. How did they make the ARON & the MENORAH etc.?]

3. What other parallels can you find in Vayakhel/Pkudei to "chet ha'egel"? Relate to 33:7 (in contrast to 25:8) and Rashi on Shmot 29:1.

4. Even if we assume (like Ramban) that the commandment to build the Mishkan was given BEFORE chet ha'egel, when do Bnei Yisrael first hear this mitzvah? When they do hear this mitzvah, would you expect that these laws be relayed in a manner that relates in some way to the events of chet ha'egel?
If so, cite some examples.

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)

1. Review Parshat Vayakhel, noting the primary topic of each of its 'parshiot'. As usual, make a vertical listing of these parshiot, using one word (or at most a phrase) to summarize each parshia. After you complete your list, attempt to organize it into outline form.
Then, take this outline, and compare it to the similar outline that you prepared made for Parshat Terumah. Attempt to understand what it the governing principle for each Parsha.
How would you define the order of Parshat Vayakhel?
How would you define the order of Parshat Terumah?
In your opinion, is one order more logical than the other? Attempt to explain the reason for the differences, based on the setting (and/or purpose) of each Parsha.

2. Is the description of how the vessels are made in Vayakhel exactly the same as their description in God's commandment to Moshe in Parshat Terumah? If not, what aspect is different?
Is there any mention in Parshat Vayakhel concerning the FUNCTION of the various vessels of the Mishkan?
If so, where?
If not, in your opinion, why not?

3. Is there any mention of the SHCHINA in Vayakhel/Pkudei?
Is there any mention of the SHCHINA in Trumah/Tezaveh?
If so, where, and why?
Can you explain the reason for the differences.
[Are there any commandments in Terumah/Tzaveh that are not repeated in Vayakhel/Pkudei. If so, which ones?
Are those which are 'missing' here repeated somewhere else in Chumash? If so, where? Can you explain why. In your answer relate to the difference between 'building' the Mishkan, and 'using' it.
Keep this question in mind when you study Sefer Vayikra.]

4. Recall how the ARON forms the focal point of the Mishkan, and how the KAPORET forms its 'protective cover' (see Shmot 25:10-22 & TSC shiur on Yom KiPpur).
In your opinion, what is the purpose of the KERUVIM on the KAPORET? Similarly, what is the purpose of the KERUVIM embroidered on the PAROCHET? (See Shmot 26:31.)
Is there a mention of KERUVIM earlier in Chumash? If so, what was their function? [If you give up, take a look at the end of chapter three in Sefer Breishit.]
What is the thematic significance of this parallel.

5. Review Mishlei 3:1-18, noting especially 3:18 in its context. What does the "etz chayim" refer to? Can you relate this to the "etz ha'chayim" in Gan Eden and the KERUVIM that protect it?
Relate your answer to the above question as well.

6. Attempt to find any thematic similarities between the story of Adam in Gan Eden, and the story of the first & second Luchot (in relation to chet ha'egel).
See if you can relate this to any of the point discussed above in regard to the purpose of the Mishkan and what it symbolizes.

PART III - PARSHANUT

[Even though the following questions begin with Ki-tisa, you'll soon see their connection to Vayakhel.]
1. Based on what you remember thus far in Sefer Shmot, what specific mitzvot did Moshe Rabeinu receive on Har Sinai?
WHEN did Bnei Yisrael receive these mitzvot?
[Support your answer with a pasuk!]
[In your answer, relate to mitzvot that Moshe received during both the first forty days AND the last forty days.]

2. After you answer question #1, read Shmot 34:27-35, paying special attention to pasuk 32. [Did you relate to this pasuk in your answer to question #1! If not, re-answer question #1.]
In your opinion, which 'commandments' does this pasuk refer to?[You can suggest different possibilities.]
Now, see the following commentators on 34:32,
Rashbam / [Explain the 'unit' he is referring to.]
Ramban / [In what way does he differ from Rashbam?]
Ibn Ezra /[What "tnayim" is he referring to?
In what way does he differ from Ramban?]
Seforno/ [Is this the same as Rashbam or different?
Explain what is different and why!]
Chizkuni / Does Chizkuni answer this question?

3. Carefully review this Chizkuni (on 34:32) once again, noting how he explains HOW and WHEN the Torah, as we have it today, was written. See also the Gemara that he quotes from Gitin 60a concerning "torah megillah megillah nitna".
According to this Chizkuni, how can one understand the reason for Chazal's exegetic approach of "ein mukdam u'muchar ba'Torah"?

4. Based on your answer to question #2, how would you explain the phrase "AYLEH HA'DEVARIM..." in the first pasuk of Parshat Vayakhel (35:1)? In other words, what "devarim"is Moshe referring to.
As usual, you can suggest several possibilities.
[Be sure to relate to 35:4 & 35:20.]
Then, look up the following commentaries:
Ramban / (see Ramban on the entire pasuk!)
How does Ramban relate to 34:32?
Seforno / How does Sforno relate to 34:32?
Ibn Ezra ("katzar")/ see Gemara Shabbat 70a which he quotes.
Why does Ibn Ezra argue with this interpretation?
Chizkuni/ Is this the same interpretation as Ramban?

VANITY MIRRORS?

5. Read 38:8, and attempt to translate this pasuk. Which words are difficult, and basically - why is important to know from where the copper of the KIYOR came from? {Where did the copper for the MIZBACH HA'NECHOSHET come from? See 38:29-31!
See Rashi, noting how answers the above questions. According to Rashi, explain the difference of opinion between Moshe and Hashem concerning the use of this copper.
Next, see Ibn Ezra (also on 38:8). In what manner is his pirush totally different than Rashi's. According to each, WHY did the women donate their copper mirrors specifically for the KIYOR?
Then, see Ramban, noting what point bothers him in Rashi's pirush. How does Ramban answer this question, why does he quote Unkelos, and why does he maintain that Unkelos seems to follow in the lines of Ibn Ezra's pirush.
Finally, see Seforno. What textual difficulty does his pirush deal with. How does his pirush relate to Ibn Ezra's?

2. SHIUR ON PARASHAT VAYKHEL-PIKUDEI

PARSHAT VAYAKHEL

Is Parshat Vayakhel simply a REPEAT Parshat Terumah? At first glance, it certainly appears to be.
And even if we can identify some slight differences, the most obvious question remains concerning theTorah's need to dedciate so many chapters to the Mishkan's construction.
In this week's shiur, in an attempt to answer these questions, we study the different PURPOSES of Parshiot Terumah and Vayakhel, while considering how their presentation may relate to the events of chet ha'egel.

INTRODUCTION

From a technical point of view, it is quite easy to discern the basic difference between these two Parshiot. Parshat Terumah records how:
GOD gave these commandments to MOSHE.
Parshat Vayakhel describes how:
MOSHE conveys these instructions to BNEI YISRAEL.

Let's explain how this affects their order:

THE ORDER IN PARSHAT TERUMAH

As we explained in our shiur on Parshat Tezaveh, the primary focus of this "tzivui ha'Mishkan" unit (i.e. chapters 25->29) was the primary function and purpose of the Mishkan. Therefore, this unit opened with its 'statement of purpose':

"And you shall build for Me a MIKDASH in order that I shall DWELL among you." (see 25:1-8)
and closed with an almost identical statement:
"And I shall DWELL among BNEI YISRAEL, and I will be for them a God, and they shall know..." (see 29:45-46)

In that shiur, we understood these two 'matching' psukim as the 'bookends' of the SHCHINA unit. This observation can help us understand the internal order of the 'parshiot' within this unit.
The Torah begins this unit with the ARON [ark of the covenant], for it is the vessel that will house the "luchot" [the tablets upon which God wrote the Ten Commandments]. As these tablets serve as an everlasting symbol of the covenant at Har Sinai ["luchot ha'BRIT"], the ARON becomes the focal point of the Mishkan. In that same "parshia", we also find the description of the KAPORET, the protective cover of the ARON, from where God will speak to Moshe. As such, the ARON & KAPORET form not only a symbol of Har Sinai, but also a vehicle to facilitate its continuation. From above the KAPORET, God will continue to command Moshe the remaining mitzvot [see Shmot 25:21-22.]
The next set of "parshiot" describe the MENORAH and the SHULCHAN (see 25:23-40), the "keilim" [vessels] that were situated just outside the ARON, but within the same tent (partitioned by the PAROCHET).
Immediately afterward, we find the description of the portable structure that will house them, i.e. the canvas for the tent ["yeriot ha'mishkan"] and its support poles ["kerashim"] etc. (see 26:1-37). This description of what the Torah refers to as the OHEL MOED [the tent of meeting] follows after the laws of the vessels, for this structure serves only a secondary function, i.e. to house these vessels.
This commandment is followed by the laws to build the MIZBAYACH [alter], for it is situated just in front of this OHEL MOED (27:1-8). Afterward, we find the description of how to build the CHATZER [the curtains and poles that create the courtyard], for that courtyard surrounds the MIZBAYACH and the OHEL MOED (see 27:9-19).
This SHCHINA unit concludes with the laws concerning the KOHANIM who officiate in the Mishkan (chapter 28), and the seven-day ["miluim"] dedication ceremony (chapter 29). In chapters 30 and 31 we find additional mitzvot relating to the Mishkan, including the "mizbach ketoret" and "kiyor". At the very conclusion of the TZIVUI HA'MISHKAN we find the instruction to appoint Betzalel to build the Mishkan, and the reminder not to undertake any construction on shabbat.
The following table summarizes this order in Parshat Terumah according to its most general categories:

INTRO - SHCHINA
KEILIM - the vessels (chapter 25)
* The aron - which will house the LUCHOT
* The kaporet - from where God will speak to Moshe
* The shulchan - on which the LECHEM will be placed
* The menorah - which will provide light
STRUCTURE - the OHEL MOED (the tent - chapter 26)
* The "yeriot"
* The "krashim"
* The "parochet"
CHATZER - The courtyard (chapter 27)
* The mizbayach - the alter in front of the OHEL MOED
* The courtyard - "amudei v'kalei ha'chatzer"
KOHANIM (chapters 28 & 29)
* The bigdei Kehuna
* The dedication ceremony (MILUIM)
MISC. TOPICS (chapter 30)
THE BUILDER - BETZALEL (chapter 31)
SHABBAT (not to build the Mishkan on shabbat/ 31:11-17)

THE ORDER IN PARSHAT VA'YAKHEL

In contrast to this order in Parshat Terumah, the order in Parshat Va'yakhel is slightly different, for now Moshe must explain to Bnei Yisrael HOW to build Mishkan. Therefore, the sequence will follow a more PRACTICAL order, i.e. from the perspective of its construction.
The following table summarizes this 'practical' order, as presented in Parshat Va'yakhel:

SHABBAT (35:1-3)
* Guidelines for WHEN construction work is permitted.
TERUMAH
* The collection of the building materials (35:4-29);
THE BUILDER
* The appointment of the chief architect - Betzallel - and his fellow artisans (35:30-36:7);
STRUCTURE - the OHEL MOED - the tent (36:8-38):
* the "ye'riot,"
* the "kerashim"
* the parochet
KEILIM (chapter 37)
* the aron
* shulchan
* menorah
* mizbach ktoret (from MISC. above)
CHATZER (chapter 38)
* the mizbayach
* the kiyor (from MISC. above)
* the courtyard
KOHANIM (chapter 39)
* their garments
CONSTRUCTION
* assembly of the Mishkan on the 1st of Nisan (40:1-33)
SHCHINA
* God's glory dwells on the Mishkan (40:34-38)

Simply, review (and compare) these two tables. Doing so will help you understand how and why the order in Vayakhel/Pekudei differs from the order in Terumah/Tezaveh.
[Note as well that the "mizbach ha'ktoret" and the "kiyor" that were omitted (for thematic reasons) from the SHCHINA unit in Trumah/Tezaveh are now included (for practical reasons) in Parshat Va'yakhel - right where they belong! [See also TSC shiur on Parshat Tezaveh.]

WHY THE REPETITION?

Although this distinction explains the differences in sequence between Terumah and Vayakhel, we must still justify the Torah's repetition of the minute details of the Mishkan. After all, building the Mishkan was only a 'one-time' mitzvah. Would it not have been sufficient for the Torah to simply tell us that Bnei Yisrael constructed the Mishkan 'as God commanded Moshe on Har Sinai'?
Furthermore, why does the SHCHINA aspect of the Mishkan - so prominent a theme in Parshat Terumah - appear to be missing from Parshat Vayakhel?
[As you review Parshat Vayakhel, not how we only find the technical details concerning how to build each vessel, without any mention of its function. In contrast, Parshat Terumah presented each of the vessels together with a short description of its function.]

To answer at least some of these questions, we begin our study with a review of Ramban's explanation for why the laws of the Mishkan follow immediately after the unit that described Ma'amad Har Sinai [the Theophany], while considering once again the overall theme of Sefer Shmot.

THE MISHKAN EXCLUSIVE

Recall from the very end of Parshat Mishpatim how Moshe ascended Har Sinai for the first forty days in order to receive the "LUCHOT, TORAH & MITZVAH" (see Shmot 24:12). Even though this included most (if not all) of the 613 commandments, for some reason, the section that follows in Sefer Shmot [i.e. chapters 25->31) records ONLY those mitzvot applying to the Mishkan. The remaining mitzvot that Moshe received at that time are recorded instead in the books of Vayikra (at least Parshat Behar), Bamidbar, and Devarim (see chapter 5, especially 5:27-28!)

Likewise, when Moshe DESCENDS from Har Sinai after the last forty days, the Torah informs us that he conveyed ALL the mitzvot to Bnei Yisrael at that time (see 34:32). Nonetheless, Sefer Shmot chooses to record only Moshe's transmission of the mitzvot concerning the Mishkan (i.e. chapters 35->40). [See Chizkuni's commentary to 34:32!]
In other words, the second half of Sefer Shmot seems to focus exclusively on the laws of the Mishkan?
Troubled by this question, Ramban, already in his introduction to Sefer Shmot, suggests an answer in his attempt to identify an overall theme of Sefer Shmot:

"... Sefer Shmot discusses the exile [i.e. the slavery in Egypt]... and Bnei Yisrael's redemption from that exile... for the descent of the children of Yaakov to Egypt marked the beginning of that exile... and that exile does not end until they return to the spiritual level of their forefathers... Even though Bnei Yisrael had left Egypt [i.e. physical redemption], they are not yet considered redeemed... [However,] when they reach Har Sinai and build the Mishkan, and God returns His SHCHINA to dwell among them, THEN they have returned to the spiritual level of their forefathers [spiritual redemption]... Therefore, Sefer Shmot concludes with the topic of the Mishkan and the constant dwelling of God's Glory upon it [for this marks the completion of the Redemption process]."

(see Ramban, introduction to Sefer Shmot)
According to Ramban, Sefer Shmot concludes with the story of the Mishkan because its construction marks the completion of Bnei Yisrael's redemption. His explanation can help us understand the manner in which the Torah repeats the details of the Mishkan in Parshiot Vayakhel/Pekudei.

SPIRITUAL REHABILITATION

As Ramban explained, the 'spiritual level' that Bnei Yisrael had achieved at Ma'amad Har Sinai was lost as a result of Chet ha'Egel. Consequently, God had removed His SHCHINA from Bnei Yisrael (see Shmot 33:1-7), effectively thwarting the redemption process that began with Yetziat Mitzraim.
Moshe Rabeinu's intervention on Bnei Yisrael's behalf (see 32:11-14) after chet ha'egel certainly saved them from destruction, and may have secured their atonement (see 32:30, 34:9); however, that prayer alone could not restore Bnei Yisrael to the spiritual level achieved at Har Sinai. The SHCHINA, that ideally was to have resided in their midst (i.e. within the camp), had left and resided instead OUTSIDE the camp (see 33:7, read carefully!).
In wake of that Divine punishment, Moshe interceded once again of behalf of his people (see 33:12-16), whereupon God declared his thirteen 'attributes of mercy' (33:17-34:8), thus allowing Bnei Yisrael a 'second chance'. Nonetheless, even though 'attributes of mercy' now enabled God to once again dwell in their midst, His SHCHINA did not return automatically! Instead, to 'bring' the SHCHINA back, it would be necessary for Bnei Yisrael to do something - i.e. they must actively and collectively involve themselves in the process of building the Mishkan.
In other words, Bnei Yisrael required what we might call a 'spiritual rehabilitation.' Their collective participation in the construction of the Mishkan helped repair the strain in their relationship with God brought about by the events of chet ha'Egel. [Or, using more 'kabalistic' terminology, the construction of the Mishkan functioned as a "tikun" for chet ha'Egel.] A closer examination of Parshiot Vayakhel/Pekudei supports this interpretation, and can help us understand the significance of the Torah's repetition of the Mishkan's detail.

TEXTUAL PARALLELS

For example, note the Torah's use of the word "va'yakhel" at the beginning of the Parsha. This verb, used to describe how Moshe gathers the nation to command them concerning the Mishkan, immediately brings to mind the opening line of the Chet ha'Egel narrative:

"VA'YIKAHEL ha'am al Aharon - and the nation GATHERED against Aharon..." (32:1).

This new 'gathering' of the people, this time for the purpose of building the Mishkan, serves as a "tikun" for that original gathering that lead to chet ha'egel. In contrast to their assembly to fashion the golden calf, Bnei Yisrael now gather to build the PROPER symbol of God's presence.
Similarly, the commandment for the people to DONATE THEIR GOLD and other belongings for this project (see 35:5) can be viewed as a "tikun" for Aharon's solicitation of the people's gold for the EGEL (see 32:2-3).
However, the strongest proof is the Torah's glaring repetition of the phrase: "ka'asher tzivah Hashem et Moshe" ["as GOD commanded Moshe"]. This phrase not only appears in both the opening commandment (35:1 & 35:4) and the finale (39:32 & 39:43), but it is repeated like a chorus over twenty times throughout Vayakhel-Pekudei, at every key point of the construction process. [I recommend that you note this using a Tanach Koren. See 35:29; 36:1; 36:5; 39:1,5,7,21,26,29,31,32 39:42,43; and especially in 40:16,19,21,23,25,27,29,32, as each part of the Mishkan is put into its proper place.]
Clearly, the Torah's repetition of this phrase is intentional, and may very well point to the Mishkan's function as a "tikun" for Chet ha'Egel. Let's explain why:
Recall from our shiur on Parshat Ki-tisa that the people's [and Aharon's] initial intention was to make a physical representation of their perception of God. Despite the innocence of such aspirations per se, a man-made representation, no matter how pure its intention, may lead to idol worship (see Shmot 20:20). This does not mean, however, that God cannot ever be represented by a physical symbol. When God Himself chooses the symbol, it is not only permitted, but it becomes a MITZVAH. In essence, this may be what the Mishkan/Mikdash is all about. [See 23:17,19; 34:24, Devarim 12:5,11 & 16:16.] The Torah therefore stresses that Bnei Yisrael have now 'learned their lesson.' This time, they must construct the Mishkan PRECISELY 'as GOD commanded Moshe,' down to the very last detail, understanding that there is no room for human innovation when choosing a symbol for His Divine Presence.

AN APPROPRIATE FINALE

This concept of "tikun" for Chet ha'Egel finds further support in the very conclusion of Sefer Shmot.
Although the aspect of SHCHINA (a central feature in Terumah/Tezaveh) is mentioned nowhere throughout the detail of the Mishkan's construction in Vayakhel/Pekudei, it makes a sudden reappearance at the very end of the sefer. After each component of the Mishkan is put into place on the first of Nisan (see 40:1-33), this entire process reaches its dramatic climax:

"When Moshe had finished his work, the ANAN (cloud) covered the OHEL MOED and GOD's KAVOD ('Glory') filled the Mishkan." (40:34)

This pasuk describes the dwelling of the SHCHINA on the MISHKAN in the exact same terms used to depict the dwelling of the SHCHINA on HAR SINAI:

"When Moshe ascended the HAR [Mount Sinai, to receive the first LUCHOT], the ANAN covered the HAR, and KVOD HASHEM (God's glory) dwelled upon HAR SINAI..." (see 24:15-16)

Clearly, the Torah intentionally parallels, thereby associating, the original descent of the SHCHINA onto Har Sinai with the present dwelling of the SHCHINA on the Mishkan. Only AFTER Bnei Yisrael meticulously complete the construction of the Mishkan - precisely 'as God commanded MOSHE' - does the SHCHINA return to Bnei Yisrael and dwell therein (40:34), just as it had dwelled on Har Sinai.
Thus, the end of Sefer Shmot marks the completion of the "tikun" for Chet ha'Egel. Accordingly, as Ramban posits, the entire 'redemption process' - the theme of Sefer Shmot - has also reached its culmination.
The Shchina's return to the camp also signifies Bnei Yisrael's return to the stature they had lost after the golden calf. Recall that in the aftermath of that incident:

"Moshe took his tent and set it up OUTSIDE the camp, FAR AWAY from the camp, and called it the OHEL MOED [tent of meeting (with God)], such that anyone who would search for God was required to go out to this OHEL MOED, OUTSIDE THE CAMP." [see 33:7 and its context in 33:1-11]

Recall how this OHEL MOED, located OUTSIDE the camp, symbolized the distancing of the SHCHINA. Once the Mishkan is built, God will bring His SHCHINA back INSIDE the camp. [See 25:8 and 29:45.]

BACK TO BREISHIT

Thus far, we have shown that the MANNER in which Bnei Yisrael construct the Mishkan serves as a "tikun" for chet ha'Egel and relates to the overall theme of Sefer Shmot.
One could suggest that the very concept of a Mishkan - irrespective of its mode of construction - may constitute a more general "tikun," beyond the specific context of the golden calf. In this sense, the Mishkan relates to a more general Biblical theme developed in Sefer Breishit.
As explained in our shiurim on Sefer Breishit, the Garden of Eden reflects the ideal spiritual environment in which Man cultivates his relationship with God. After Adam sinned and was consequently banished from the Garden, God placed KERUVIM to guard the PATH OF RETURN to the Tree of Life (see Breishit 3:24).
It may not be coincidental that the Mishkan is the only other context throughout the entire Chumash where the concept of KERUVIM appears. Note how the Mishkan features KERUVIM:

� on the KAPORET as protectors of the ARON, which contains the LUCHOT (Shmot 25:22), and
� woven in the PAROCHET, the special curtain guarding the entrance into the Kodesh ha'Kodashim - the Holy of Holies (where the ARON and KAPORET are situated). [See 26:**]

This parallel suggests a conceptual relationship between Gan Eden and the Mishkan. The symbolic function of the KERUVIM as guardians of the Kodesh K'doshim may correspond to the Mishkan's function as an environment similar to Gan Eden, where man can strive to come closer to God:

� The KERUVIM of the KAPORET, protecting the ARON, indicate that the Torah should be viewed as the 'Tree of Life' in Gan Eden. [Recall how the "luchot" constitute a symbol of the covenant at Har Sinai, and hence those laws that were given by God to Moshe. - represented by the LUCHOT inside the ARON. See Mishlei 3:1-18 - "etz chayim hi la'machazikim bah".]
� The KERUVIM woven into the PAROCHET remind man that his entry into the Kodesh Kedoshim, although desired, remains limited and requires spiritual readiness. [Note that KERUVIM are also woven into the "yeriot" - the innermost covering of the Mishkan (see Shmot 26:1-2).]

In this sense, we may view the Mishkan as a "tikun" for Adam's sin in the Garden of Eden. Should man wish to return to the Tree of Life, he must keep God's covenant - the laws of the Torah - as symbolized by the LUCHOT HA'EIDUT in the ARON, protected by the KERUVIM.

3. FOR FURTHER IYUN

A. AN IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION

It is important that we clarify this "tikun" aspect of the Mishkan. Our claim is not that the Mishkan itself constitutes a "tikun" for chet ha'Egel, rather, the MANNER by which Bnei Yisrael must build it serves as a "tikun." Consequently, our analysis here stands independent of the controversy between Rashi and Ramban as to WHEN God commanded the building of the Mishkan. As we explained in our shiur on Parshat Terumah, Ramban (Mishkan commanded BEFORE Chet ha'Egel) and Rashi (Mishkan commanded AFTER Chet ha'Egel) argue only whether the need for a TEMPORARY Mishkan resulted from Chet ha'Egel. However, Rashi must agree that the basic concept of a Mikdash is necessary to perpetuate the experience of Har Sinai, just as Ramban in Parshat Vayakhel must agree that the manner in which Bnei Yisrael ultimately construct the Mishkan reflects their correction of the sin of Chet ha'Egel.

B. 'SHCHINA TAMID'

We stated that Terumah/Tezaveh describes the function of each object in the Mishkan. It may be suggested that the actual function of each "kli" relates in a certain manner to our constant efforts to keep God's presence in the Mishkan. The following table demonstrates the three levels of "kedusha" in the Mishkan, according to the functions of the vessels located in the three regions of the Mishkan:

KODESH K'DOSHIM
the Aron ? contains the "luchot ha'eidut"
the Kaporet ? from where God will speak to Moshe

KODESH
the Shulchan ? "lechem panim l'fa'nai TAMID"
the Menorah ? "l'ha'alot ner TAMID"
the Mizbach ha'zahav ? "l'haktir k'toret TAMID"

CHATZER HAMISHKAN
the Mizbach ha'nchoshet? "l'hakriv olat ha'TAMID"

The "Kodesh K'doshim" contains the luchot, the eternal testament to the covenant at Har Sinai. God SPEAKS to Moshe from in between the KERUVIM (25:21-22), thus perpetuating the Har Sinai experience. In this domain, God 'comes down' to man; as such, no "avodah" (ritual) is performed.
Outside this domain, in the "Kodesh," the kohanim perform they daily AVODAT TAMID - lighting the menorah, offering the ktoret, and keeping bread on the shulchan.
Outside the Mishkan is the "chatzer" (courtyard). Here, Am Yisrael collectively offer their KORBAN TAMID on the MIZBAYACH. [See shiur on Parshat Tzaveh for a complete analysis.]
Significantly, each 'kli' requires an "avodat TAMID." The word "tamid" means everlasting or continuous. Am Yisrael must perform their daily "avodat tamid" in order to deserve the continuous presence of the "shchina."
A relationship with God does not come automatically; it requires constant effort on the individual's part.

C. Beyond the parallels between the Mishkan and Gan Eden (as noted in the shiur), there exist as well textual parallels between the Mishkan and the story of Creation in the first perek of Sefer Breishit. For example, "va'teychel kol avodat ha'Mishkan..." (39:32) and "va'yar Moshe et kol ha'mlacha..." (39:43) correspond to Breishit 1:31 and 2:1. Indeed, several Midrashim view the Mishkan as the completion of the Creation process.

1. Based on the above shiur, explain this parallel.
2. The entire Mishkan plan is repeated a total of seven times in Sefer Shmot: Trumah Tzaveh ? 25:10?30:38 / 31:7?11, Vayk.Pkd: 35:11?19 /36:8?39:32 /39:33?42 /40:1?16 /40:17?33.
Connect this as well to Breishit 1 (the seven-day process of creation).
3. Relate this parallel to the location of mitzvat shabbat, which concludes the Tzivui Ha'Mishkan unit (31:12-17) and opens the "binyan Ha'Mishkan" unit (35:1-4).

D. The highest level of "hitgalut," experienced by Moshe (33:11) and Bnei Yisrael at Har Sinai (Devarim 5:4), is known as "panim b'fanim" - literally, face to face. When God 'changed' His attributes to "midot ha'rachamim" (Shmot 33:17-34:9), He states that man can no longer see His 'face,' only His 'back' (33:20-23).
1. Find the allusions to the human face in the Mishkan:
For example: menorah=eyes, shulchan=mouth, etc.
2. In your opinion, could this represent "pnei Hashem"?
3. How would the "aron" fit within this parallel?
How about the function of the "orot izim v'eylim" as a cover for the Mishkan?
4. Accordingly, what is the significance of the "masach l'petach HaMishkan" and the parochet, and the general concept of limited entry into the Mishkan?
5. According to Rashi, would this have been the structure of the Mikdash before Chet Ha'egel? According to Ramban?

E. THE THEME OF SEFER SHMOT
Throughout our study of Sefer Shmot, we traced three primary topics: (1) the Exodus (Yetziat Mitzrayim, chapters 1->17);
(2) Ma'amad Har Sinai (chapters 19->24, 32->34);
(3) the Mishkan (chapters 25->31, 35->40).
Based on the above shiur, we can suggest a fundamental relationship between these three sections:
1) Through the process of Yetziat Mitzraim, God fulfills His covenant with the Avot (the theme of Sefer Breishit) to redeem Bnei Yisrael from their bondage in Egypt so as to facilitate their development into His special nation.

2) To become this special nation, God and Bnei Yisrael enter into a covenant at Har Sinai (chapters 19->24). Bnei Yisrael receive the commandments that will mold their national and individual characters, transforming them into God's special nation.

3) The Mishkan, the symbol of the special relationship established at Har Sinai, becomes the vehicle through which that relationship can continue. Although Chet ha'Egel calls into question Bnei Yisrael's ability to survive the terms of this covenant, the new terms of the SECOND LUCHOT allow them to build the Mishkan, to which the SHCHINA returns.

An important pasuk in Parshat Tezaveh highlights this overall theme. As explained in our shiur on that parasha, chapters 25->29, which appear amidst God's instructions regarding the Mishkan,, form a distinct unit which we may call the 'SHCHINA unit' (compare 25:8 with 29:45).
The closing pasuk of that unit - "And I shall DWELL among the people of Israel, and I will be their God" (29:45) - is followed by an important summary pasuk:

"And you shall know that I am the Lord your God who took you out of the Land of Egypt - L'SHOCHNI B'TOCHAM - in order to dwell among you; I am the Lord your God." (29:46)

This pasuk accurately reflects the overall theme of Sefer Shmot. It ties together (1) Yetziat Mitzraim, (2) Matan Torah, and (3) the Mishkan with the concept of "Shchina." God takes Bnei Yisrael out of Egypt in order that they become His nation, And this relationship reaches its highest level with the presence of the "Shchina." This level was attained at Har Sinai, and it forever remains within Bnei Yisrael's reach through the 'heir' and closest substitute to Har Sinai - the Mishkan.

For more articles by Rav Menachem Leibtag, visit his web site, www.tanach.org

Missed a Parsha? Visit our Parsha Archives

For more articles by Rav Menachem Leibtag, visit his web site, www.tanach.org

Missed a Parsha? Visit our Parsha Archives